Systemic Failures and Breaches of Statutory Guidance by the Police and IPCC/IOPC Identified on this Website
IPCC / IOPC
Families have evidence that the IPCC breached their own procedures in failing to investigate complaints against the police in a way that suggests collusion to shut down complaints. In some cases, these miscarriages of justice went all the way to the Chief Executive and Chair of the former IPCC who were made aware of breaches of procedures and their own discrimination policy and yet did nothing to investigate it. Even those responsible for commissioning the IPCC in the Home Office have failed to investigate serious allegations against chief IPCC officers.
FAILINGS BY THE IPCC REPORTED TO PARLIAMENT IN 2013, YET STILL EVIDENCED ON THIS SITE IN 2018
In 2013, Parliament commissioned an inquiry from the Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) to report on how effectively the IPCC were performing in their role of scrutinising complaints against the police. There is little evidence that the list of failures provided below has ever been addressed, or that the IOPC is any more effective today than the IPCC was in 2013.
We ask that the current Home Affairs Select Committee revisit this report and investigate the evidence provided by Max, Daniel and Sam’s stories on this site, in order to identify why those same failures identified in 2013 continue to characterise the performance of IOPC today.
From The Report:
10. We heard significant concerns that the processes and procedures maintained by the Commission were not robust enough. As the Police Action Lawyers Group put it, “our clients can expect islands of good practice scattered amongst a sea of ineffective conduct in respect of the IPCC’s investigatory, supervisory and appellate functions”.5 Our inquiry raised the following issues:
a) failure to locate evidence and propensity to uncritically accept police explanations for missing evidence (including forensic, CCTV and other evidence from the scene);
b) lack of “investigatory rigour” and “thorough investigation”;
c) slowness in responding to complaints and conducting investigations;
d) reliance on scene of crime officers from the force under investigation;
e) lack of skills and experience of qualified lawyers and prosecutors;
f) failure to critically analyse competing accounts, even with inconsistencies between officers’ accounts or an compelling account from a complainant;
g) the Department of Professional Standards in the force being investigated was allowed to summarise the complaint (without consulting the complainant) and then proceed directly to investigating it on these terms;
h) the requirement for a complainant to attend the police station where the offence may have taken place, after a traumatic experience in custody.
11. Inquest noted “dismay and disillusionment” at “the consistently poor quality of decision-making at all levels of the IPCC” and unsuccessful attempts to raise concerns through the IPCC Advisory Board, where “follow-up on agreed action points has been pitifully poor”.